patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,359,399 comments by 15,737 users - Ceffer, FortWayneHatesRealtors, Maga_Chaos_Monkey online now
« First « Previous Comments 241 - 251 of 251 Search these comments
leo707
2011 Oct 10, 8:53am
If the payout parameters are uncertain, then it's a lottery, and I don't want to play.
Clearly you have not dealt much with insurance companies, the payout is always uncertain. I hope you never have to learn this first hand.
If the payout parameters are uncertain, then it's a lottery, and I don't want to play.
Clearly you have not dealt much with insurance companies, the payout is always uncertain. I hope you never have to learn this first hand.
I have dealt with insurance companies my fair share, different ones, too, and have never had a problem getting paid. YMMV.
I had one time where I had an argument about to what degree they should cover my rental car when my car was in the shop for two different claims - I argued the rental coverage applied twice, and should at least cover all of my out of pocket costs, they argued it could only apply once, but we are talking about a difference of less than $100 between the two positions and if I really have wanted to I could taken it to court and duked it out on this one.
To compare that to the possibility the SS "insurance" ends up paying me out zero and I have no recourse, is apples to oranges.
leo707
2011 Oct 10, 9:07am
I had one time where I had an argument about to what degree they should cover my rental car when my car was in the shop for two different claims - I argued the rental coverage applied twice, and should at least cover all of my out of pocket costs, they argued it could only apply once, but we are talking about a difference of less than $100 between the two positions and if I really have wanted to I could taken it to court and duked it out on this one.
Ah, so you have had a little taste. It just gets worse the more money that is on the line for them.
'we have means tested you, and you make too much to get a payout
Strawman with respect to Social Security. Social Security pays out based on what you put in.
Hardly a strawman FOR THE FUTURE (you know, when I might actually get a payout), it's already under discussion and more likely than not, I think, to be the case by the time I am retirement age in 30+ years.
I didn't say it was going to apply to anyone now, or retiring soon - in fact I said the contrary in other posts, that that kiind of argument was used to demagogue anyone who proposed any changes to the SS system, 'You're threatening the seniors'. Most of these proposed changes to the extent they threaten anyone, threaten the young.
Hardly a strawman FOR THE FUTURE (you know, when I might actually get a payout), it's already under discussion and more likely than not, I think, to be the case by the time I am retirement age in 30+ years.
Except that most of the claims that Social Security would run out of money are based on uber-long-term projections that could change quite easily. In addition, the fixes are easy -- you could raise payroll taxes, even without cutting benefits. It's only politics that makes everyone think Social Security is so threatened (even if very few people seem to understand how it works, as this thread shows).
Do you have a contract with SS under X premises?
"We put those payroll contributions in so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pension and unemployment benefits with those taxes in there. No damned politician can ever scrap my Social Security Program.â€
-FDR
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page19_text.html
Except that most of the claims that Social Security would run out of money are based on uber-long-term projections that could change quite easily. In addition, the fixes are easy -- you could raise payroll taxes, even without cutting benefits.
Sure, just raise taxes, great idea, of course - why didn't I think of that!?
leo707
2011 Oct 10, 3:26pm
Do you have a contract with SS under X premises?
"We put those payroll contributions in so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pension and unemployment benefits with those taxes in there. No damned politician can ever scrap my Social Security Program.â€
-FDR
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page19_text.html
Sounds pretty vague, not unlike most insurance contracts.
Sure, just raise taxes, great idea, of course - why didn't I think of that!?
Actually, it's not a bad idea and Reagan did it, so clearly it's a bipartisan thing. It wouldn't be hard to raise the cap only slightly from $106,800.
Anyway, as I mentioned, it's possible that there will be no issue.
« First « Previous Comments 241 - 251 of 251 Search these comments
The fatal weakness of the Republican Party is that Republicans want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.
Millions of elderly people depend on Social Security and Medicare for their survival.
Republicans would be very happy to make the elderly poor eat dog food and go entirely without medical care, because Social Security and Medicare run on tax money, and anything that runs on tax money is GODLESS COMMUNISM to Republicans.
The elderly have been alive a long time (by definition), so they know the score, and they vote in large numbers. They also tend to be racist. I've seen this racism in my own elderly relatives many times. Elderly white people hate having a black president with a Muslim name, and this drives them away from the Democratic Party. They would not have even one tenth as much hatred for Joe Biden as president, even though he's politically the same as Obama.
What it comes down to is whether their hatred for blacks is greater than the hate they will feel when Social Security and Medicare are eliminated by Republicans.
I think I know the answer to that one.
#politics